s university, and to
do the very considerable amount of hack work which appeared in 1691 and
1692, as well as embarking upon his large historical works, but also
translated two difficult Roman authors with great verve.

It would be interesting to know why, in the years between 1691 and 1694,
Echard turned his attentions to the art of translation. The venture is a
curious deviation from his otherwise single-minded devotion to history
and to journalistic enterprises (the only other translation he is known
to have done is the brief "Auction of the Philosophers" in _The Works of
Lucian_ [1710-11]). The connection of Dr. John Eachard and Sir Roger
L'Estrange may offer a slight clue. Echard was closely related to Dr.
Eachard (1636?-1697), Master of Catharine Hall, Cambridge, and author of
the lively dialogue, _Mr. Hobbs's State of Nature Consider'd_ (1672).[5]
With a family connection such as this, Echard might well have hoped for
a successful career centered on his stay at Cambridge. The dedication of
his _A Most Complete Compendium_ in 1691 to the Master of his own
college, Dr. John Covel, suggests that he was looking in this direction.
L'Estrange is important not only for his intimate knowledge of the
publishing trade, but also because he was a translator in his own right.
His _AEsop_ appeared in 1692, and he had early put out translations of
Quevedo (1673), Cicero (1680), and Erasmus (1680), and was to go on to
translate Flavius Josephus (1702). Since L'Estrange had also been a
student at Cambridge, there is some possibility that the translation of
Terence was carried out at the instigation of a Cambridge based group.
The translation might also be connected with the resurgence of interest
in translation and in "correctness" which can be discerned in the
1690's.[6]

The two Prefaces differ somewhat in character. It seems clear from
remarks made in the Preface to the _Plautus_ that it was written after
the _Terence_ had already reached the public and after Echard's copy for
the text of Plautus's three comedies was in the printer's hands. Not
surprisingly the later Preface is hurried, and at times almost casual.
The Preface to the _Terence_ is more ambitious, more carefully written,
and more wide-ranging, though giving fewer examples of the kinds of
translations made by Echard. Both Prefaces lay claim to substantially
the same audience. That to the _Terence_ explains that the translation
was undertaken in the first place be